LBJ's 1964 campaign demonstrated the first successful portrayal of mushroom cloud ads on TV to win. The mushroom cloud TV ad strategy was repeated by the Dubya Regime to justify the Iraq invasion and Its only a matter of days before we see the mushroom cloud in Clinton campaign TV ads.
The reward Murkins got for falling for it was the Viet Nam and Iraq occupations. Will Murkins fall for it a third time ?
JillStein 2016. The only SANE choice.
One Kim Jong Un is enough. We don't need the white Christian version with enough weapons at his disposal to kill everyone. No doubt, among Trump's supporters are the "bomb them back to the stone age' crowd. That group has been around for a long time. The US did not bomb China back to the stone age as these folks wanted back in the days in the Korean War, nor did the US bomb North Vietnam back into stone age during the Vietnam War which many Americans were probably calling for. There is a segment of our population that has a totally ruthless attitude toward enemy foreign countries. It seems imperative that we must stop the same type of person from becoming commander in chief of the US armed forces.
The president alone has the authority to launch nuclear weapons. I would not count on the military not following the order.
Great choices we would have. Trump randomly nuking Muslim countries or Hillary engaging in a nuclear exchange with Russia. At this point, we can only hope for the best of two losing propositions (there is Jill Stein, but even CD doesn't give her much coverage).. Of course, both candidates could adopt Obama's approach which was drop enough "conventional bombs" on Muslim countries to be equivalent in TNT power to several A-bombs. (Obama last year dropped something like 24,000 bombs on Muslim dominated countries--he will probably exceed Bush's level of bombing.)
I don't much doubt that Trump is the less stable / more unpredictable of the 2 weevils. Considering that alone, it might suggest a LEV. However, Clinton, by most assessments, is the most hawkish of the candidates, and while I don't think she now would seek a nuclear war, what troubles me is that her hawkish interventionism and buy-in to the PNAC philosophy of American exceptionalism / right / might well lead to the types of confrontations that make nuclear exchanges even more possible if not altogether likely.
This possibility is being furthered by US plans on modernization / buildup of nuclear weapons including their refinement into "smaller" packages that would somehow make it easier to justify their "discreet" usage.
For CD staffer to write this article without such acknowlegment is rather disappointing. I'm not sure who it is targeted to, but it should be apparent by now that few CD readers (as judging by comments, at least) are buying the bogey-man fears enough to change their minds. There are too many danged infrormed thinkers among them.
I'm more scared of Hillary with nukes. At least Trump wants to make deals with Putin, while Hillary and Co. are demonizing Putin and threatening confrontations with Russia.
Russian hack is not fiction. A Russian news site even reported on the content of the emails before wikileaks released them.
Trump has already acknowledged that he would have attacked Iran last month.
I trust Jill. She recently said that Hillary is more dangerous than Trump, particularly when it comes to nuclear war:
Here is where I disagree with you. Clinton seems much more disposed to send thousands of troops into an endless traditional ground-air-sea war than conducting a nuclear war. Whew ... I guess ....
HRC doesn't have to be "forced" into making belligerent or inaccurate statements. HRC was a pathological liar and a warmonger way before Trump came along. Trump is a terrible candidate, but so is HRC. Just a few years ago I was convinced that a Bush/Cheney administration was the worst that I would ever have to live through. Now I know that was wishful thinking.
Maybe what scares me most about HRC is that the MSM, which is the propaganda arm of the oligarchy, is so enthusiastic about her. That can't be good.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I said it was "wishful thinking" because I expect HRC to be the next president, I expect her to be worse, and I was assuming that I would live through that. To use a word that HRC has chosen to describe others, I would say that she is making the Democratic Party irredeemable, which makes her worse than Bush-Cheney as she is suffocating the little hope that many people had left. I wasn't talking about Obama.
And I promise you that no one despises Bush and Cheney more than I do. I've read half a dozen books about them and their administration, but my favorite was "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. He has a way of describing the piling on of the absurd mean-spiritedness (so thorough from the petty to the grand) on top of the insanity, corruption, and stupidity that was the essence of Bush-Cheney.
I am supposed to "redeem" myself? I certainly hope that's a joke.